The Original and a Copy: a Technological Challenge to Art
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7227-2023-2-77-91
Abstract
Aim. Evaluation of the impact of technological developments on visual art, and in particular on the relationship between a copy and the original.
Methodology. The influence of technology is revealed on the material of works of art from different eras. The technologies used for mass copying and creation of objects of visual art are analyzed.
Results. Traditionally, authenticity has been valued in art. The artist-creator must at the same time master the skill of working with matter, accessible only to the elite. The development of technology has made it possible to make copies easier and cheaper than the original (engraving, lithography, photography). Technology has contributed to the widespread distribution of works of art, but the difference between the original and a copy was not in doubt. The original is of great value both material and cultural, and can serve as an object of pilgrimage. Only the digital age has completely destroyed the possibility of distinguishing between the original and a copy. Digitalization means the era of visual simulacra (according to J. Baudrillard), the loss of the aura of materially present works (V.Benjamin). Digital technologies serve not only to copy works of art from different eras, but also to create a work that does not lose its features when replicated. But even in the digital age, the original and a copy were fundamentally different in the technological process of creation. However, when working with artificial intelligence technologies, a person is required to skillfully operate with words and choose the most suitable options, which finally blurs the line between the original and a copy.
Research implications. The study reveals the role of technology in art. It is shown that modern digital technologies require a new approach to understanding and evaluating artistic creativity.
About the Authors
D. Bylieva
Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dariya S. Bylieva – Cand. Sci. (Politology), Assoc. Prof., Department of Social Sciences
ul. Polytechnicheskaya 29, St. Petersburg 195251
V. Krasnoschekov
Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Victor V. Krasnoschekov – Cand. Sci. (Technical Science), Director of the Higher School of International Educational Programs
ul. Polytechnicheskaya 29, St. Petersburg 195251
References
1. Aristotle. Ēthika Nikomacheia (Rus. ed.: Braginskaya N., transl. Nikomahova etika. Moscow, EKSMOPress Publ., 1997. 492 p.).
2. Benjamin W. Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit (Rus. ed.: Romashko S. A., transl. Proizvedenie iskusstva v epohu ego tekhnicheskoj vosproizvodimosti. Moscow, Medium Publ., 1996. 239 p.).
3. Baudrillard J. Simulacres et Simulation (Rus. ed.: Kachalov A., transl. Simulyakry i simulyacii. Moscow, Postum Publ., 2015. 240 p.).
4. Byleva D. S. [Art and Artificial Intelligence]. In: Filosofiya i kul’tura informacionnogo obshchestva [Philosophy and Culture of the Information Society]. St. Petersburg, Saint-Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation Publ., 2021, pp. 187–189.
5. Zorkaya N. M. Unikal’noe i tirazhirovannoe: sredstva massovoj informacii i reproducirovannoe iskusstvo [Unique and Replicated: Mass Media and Reproduced Art]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1981. 167 p.
6. Savluchinskaya N. V., Lykova E. S., Morozkina E. A. [Art Education in the Period of Digital Globalization]. In: Sovremennye naukoyomkie tekhnologii (Modern High Technologies) [Modern High Technologies (Modern High Technologies)], 2022, no. 11, pp. 193–197.
7. Heidegger M. Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes (Rus. ed.: Mihailov A. V., transl. Istok hudozhestvennogo tvoreniya. Moscow, Akademicheskij Proekt Publ., 2005. 526 p.).
8. Belyaeva I. Explicit and Implicit Components of Social and Technical Instruction. In: Technology and Language, 2022, no. 2 (3), pp. 58–69.
9. Ingold T. Beyong Art and Technology: The Antropology of Skill. In: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Albuquerque, UNM Press, 2001, pp. 17–31.
10. Kenderdine S., Yip A. The Proliferation of Aura: Facsimiles, Authenticity and Digital Objects. In: The Routledge Handbook of Museums, Media and Communication. London, Routledge Publ., 2018, pp. 274– 289.
11. Latour B., Lowe A. The Migration of the Aura, or How to Explore the Original through Its Facsimiles. In: Bartscherer T., Coover R., eds. Switching Codes: Thinking Through Digital Technology in the Humanities and the Arts. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2011, pp. 275–298.
12. Lowe A. A Note on the Unveiling of the Facsimile of Veronese’s Wedding at Cana Copying. In: Gagliardi P., Latour B., Memelsdorff P., eds. Creative Perspectives on Conservation and Restoration. Florence, Leo Olschki Publ., 2010, pp. xiii–xiv.
13. Lowenthal D. The Past is a Foreign Country: For the Motion. In: Key Dabates in Antropology. London, Routlege Publ., 1996, pp. 206–212.
14. Marcos A. F., Branco P. S., Zagalo N. T. The Creation Process in Digital Art. In: Furht B., ed. Handbook of Multimedia for Digital Entertainment and Arts. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2009, pp. 601–615.
15. Poltronieri F., Candy L., Edmonds E. Theme: History. In: Candy L., Edmonds E., Poltronieri F., eds. Explorations in Art and Technology. Springer Series on Cultural Computing. London, Springer, 2018, pp. 3–29.
16. Radjenović D. Instructing to and Instructing in: Two Paradigms of Instruction. In: Technology and Language, 2022, no. 2 (3), pp. 6–13.
17. Williams R. Keywords. London, Fontana, 1976. 341 p.
Review
Views:
229
Email this article 